Sanju v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application of Sanju accused of outraging modesty of a minor under IPC sections 354, 323, 506 and POCSO sections 7, 8. Appellant claimed false implication due to election enmity. Court found no good ground for bail.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 868 of 2020
Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Allegation against the applicant is that he tried to outrage the modesty of the minor victim aged about 12-13 years. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the resident of neighbouring village; he has been falsely implicated due to enmity in panchayat elections.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant - Sanju involved in Case Crime No.719 of 2019, under Sections 354, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 7, 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing charges under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 7, 8 POCSO Act 2012?
Whether the nature and gravity of accusation justifies rejection of anticipatory bail without expressing opinion on merits?
Whether false implication due to enmity in panchayat elections is a sufficient ground for anticipatory bail in serious sexual offence cases?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sanju
Coram
Suneet Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/868/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court